- In short: Tasmania's premier says he's worried naming public servants in parliament is causing them psychological harm, but opposition MPs fear any limits on parliamentary privilege could prevent them from exposing wrong-doing.
- What's next: Tasmania's premier plans to request a review of the rules that govern what MPs can say in parliament to make sure they promote a safe and respectful workplace.
Members of parliament get a privilege almost no one else in Australia enjoys.
They can say virtually whatever they like about whomever they like, and as long as they say it inside of parliament they can't be sued for defamation.
This parliamentary privilege allowed Tasmanian Greens Leader Cassy O'Connor to describe a federal government staffer of being a "sexist pig" in 2021.
That same year Independent Clark MP Kristie Johnston used parliamentary privilege to accuse a fellow MP of sexually harassing multiple women.
This year both Labor and the Greens have used parliamentary privilege to air allegations of race-fixing and animal cruelty in Tasmania's harness racing industry, following an ABC investigation.
This parliamentary privilege — effectively immunity from being sued for defamation — has been a part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition that Australia follows since 1689.
There are limits — MPs are supposed to abide by a Code of Ethical Conduct — and Tasmania's Liberal government has flagged the potential for further restrictions when it comes to naming public servants in parliament.
What is the Tasmanian government proposing?
Last year Tasmania's Anti-discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt released a report finding unsafe and unhealthy conditions for workers in Tasmania's parliament and ministerial offices.
She has now written to the premier saying she is worried that naming individual public servants in parliament, instead of just referring to their professional titles, had caused harm.
"Information at hand suggests that the detrimental psychological impact on named public servants, and their families, extends well beyond the debate," Ms Bolt wrote.
"Identification by name also raises an individual's profile in the public domain, creating a higher risk of concerning anti-social behaviour directed at them."
The rules that govern behaviour in Tasmania's parliament are called standing orders.
In a ministerial statement before Question Time in state parliament on Tuesday, Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff said he planned to request a broad-ranging review of the standing orders to make sure they make the parliament a safe and respectful workplace.
"As Premier, and as Minister for Mental Health and Wellbeing, I am very aware of my responsibility for public servants who should be able to expect a safe workplace," Mr Rockliff said in a statement.
"There is an appropriate and safe way to reference individuals who are not elected members, such as referencing individual titles.
"Naming people up personally, and hiding behind the shield of parliamentary privilege, is not it."
Labor and the Greens oppose limits on parliamentary privilege
Tasmania's Labor Opposition and Greens MPs strongly objected to the potential for limits to be set on parliamentary privilege if standing orders are changed to prevent public servants from being named.
Greens MP Rosalie Woodruff said limiting parliamentary privilege could prevent MPs from calling out wrong-doing and properly scrutinising the government.
"If we can't come into this place and call out the actions of these most senior public servants when they're allowed to be named in the newspaper but we can't mention their name in the house, then we can't do our job," Dr Woodruff said.
Opposition Leader Rebecca White said unlimited freedom of speech inside parliament was a fundamental tenet of Westminster systems of democracy.
"We have to have privilege in this place extend to allow us to identify issues of wrongdoing, potential corruption and to call them out without fear of retribution," Ms White said.
"The naming of anybody in this place should be done carefully, upholding a code of conduct that we all abide to as members of this place. But it should not go so far as to limit privilege.
"It is important that we are able to name anybody, not just public servants, but anybody when we feel that there has been something done that impacts on the community, or is in the public interest to be spoken about."
Proposed limits unprecedented
The Director of the Centre for Public Integrity, Geoffrey Watson SC, said there was a long standing convention in Australia's federal and state parliaments to avoid naming low level public servants to protect their privacy.
"[That convention] doesn't necessarily apply to those who are very high in the department, especially heads of departments, and there's no reason it should," Mr Watson said.
He said it was appropriate for parliamentary privileges committees to punish MPs who misuse their freedom of speech in parliament.
"I don't know of any parliament which has gone so far as to remove privilege in this kind of select and rather strange way," Mr Watson said.
"It's step too far to legislate to remove the privilege in respect of the mention of a public servant's name in any circumstances, because there may be times in which it is necessary to do so where there's been misbehaviour, or contrary conduct or even corrupt conduct.
"The power must remain there so that the parliament can act as our supreme integrity organisation and expose these matters."
Public servants' union says focus should be on decision-makers, not workers
Community and Public Sector Union Tasmanian Secretary Thirza White said the naming of some public servants during recent parliamentary debates about Tasmania's harness racing industry had been inappropriate.
"I think there's a number of instances that have crossed a line where individual workers have been named, but also I don't think that naming individuals has actually added anything to the debate," Ms White said.
"We need to make sure that we are focusing on the decision-makers, not individual workers who spend their working lives delivering services to the community, and when we name them in parliament it has a very real cost on both their mental health and their professional reputation."
However Ms White said senior public servants and ministers should not be spared scrutiny.
"I also think it's really important that we're not using worker wellbeing as a trojan horse to decrease accountability and scrutiny of decision makers which are the head of agency and the minister," she said.
